CED

January 2013

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 27 of 83

Regulatory
A Matter of
Interpretation:
Crane Industry Unites Against
Potentially Hefty Testing Costs
Groups have widely condemned OSHA plans for crane operator certification
that could add up to $1 billion in extra costs.
By Will North
As the U.S. lifting industry gears up to certify
operators ahead of the 2014 implementation of the
cranes and derricks rule, the Specialized Carriers &
Rigging Association���s (SC&RA���s) members are questioning
a requirement for capacity certification that could, some
say, add a billion dollars to owners��� training costs.
The first public concerns over OSHA���s interpretation of
the federal rule came at the Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association���s (SC&RA���s) Rigging Workshop in Louisville,
Ky., this fall. The OSHA rule was first published in 2010
and requires certification of operators, across the U.S.,
saying, ���An operator will be deemed qualified if he or she
is certified for that type and capacity of crane.��� Since the
meeting took place, organizations including unions, crane
owners, insurers and standards bodies have spoken out
against OSHA���s interpretation of the rule.
The federal rule has been mirrored by regulations at
state level. Its certification requirements are due to take
effect in 2014. However, the certification program developed alongside the rule by the National Commission on
the Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO) only issues
certificates for different crane types, not capacity classes.
Industry members have now begun to question how
OSHA will interpret the requirement that operators be
certified for the capacity of crane they operate. With tens
of thousands of operators already certified, many worry
that existing certificates could be, essentially, worthless.
With different approaches to capacity training available, attendees at a Small Business Administration (SBA)
meeting Sept. 12 in Washington, D.C., were told that
some crane users now feel they cannot recommend any
certification scheme.
That���s Not What We Meant
Rob Weiss, of Cranes Inc., who sat on the Cranes and
Derricks Advisory Committee (CDAC) that developed the
rule, says the CDAC experts never expected OSHA to insist
on a certification by capacity requirement. ���When we
wrote the cranes and derrick rule, our intention was [to
certify by] type, but somehow capacity got in there. Now
we all have to deal with it. There was no comment at the
time of the public consultation on the inclusion in the rule
of ���type and capacity.���
���In our heads, as an industry we realized that capacity
was irrelevant,��� Weiss added. ���NCCCO and the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) were certifying to type, not capacity. When OSHA published their
answers to frequently asked questions in their interpretation, they indicated that operators��� certificates should
have a capacity reference.
���The big worry for us now is disenfranchisement of
operators certified under the existing program,��� Weiss
continued. ���The original idea was to have four subtypes
(continued on page 28)
26 | www.cedmag.com | Construction Equipment Distribution | January 2013
26_Crane_Certif_Feature_KP.indd 26
12/21/12 10:49 AM